Dataset Information

Is care really shared? A systematic review of collaborative care (shared care) interventions for adult cancer patients with depression.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Collaborative care involves active engagement of primary care and hospital physicians in shared care of patients beyond usual discharge summaries. This enhances community-based care and reduces dependence on specialists and hospitals. The model, successfully implemented in chronic care management, may have utility for treatment of depression in cancer. The aim of this systematic review was to identify components, delivery and roles and responsibilities within collaborative interventions for depression in the context of cancer.

Methods

Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library and Central Register for Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify studies of randomised controlled trials comparing a treatment intervention that met the definition of collaborative model of depression care with usual care or other control condition. Studies of adult cancer patients with major depression or a non-bipolar depressive disorder published in English between 2005 and January 2018 were included. Cochrane checklist for risk of bias was completed (Study Prospero registration: CRD42018086515).

Results

Of 8 studies identified, none adhered to the definition of 'collaborative care'. Interventions delivered were multi-disciplinary, with care co-ordinated by nurses (n?=?5) or social workers (n?=?2) under the direction of psychiatrists (n?=?7). Care was primarily delivered in cancer centres (n?=?5). Care co-ordinators advised primary care physicians (GPs) of medication changes (n?=?3) but few studies (n?=?2) actively involved GPs in medication prescribing and management.

Conclusions

This review highlighted joint participation of GPs and specialist care physicians in collaborative care depression management is promoted but not achieved in cancer care. Current models reflect hospital-based multi-disciplinary models of care.

Protocol registration

The protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018086515.

SUBMITTER: Shaw J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6376792 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care is an evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for common mental disorders in primary care. Efforts are underway to broadly implement the collaborative care model, yet the extent to which this model promotes person-centered mental health care has been little studied. The aim of this study was to describe practices related to two patient and family engagement strategies-personalized care planning and shared decision making-within collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders in primary care.MethodsWe conducted an update of a 2012 Cochrane review, which involved searches in Cochrane CCDAN and CINAHL databases, complemented by additional database, trial registry, and cluster searches. We included programs evaluated in a clinical trials targeting adults or youth diagnosed with depressive or anxiety disorders, as well as sibling reports related to these trials. Pairs of reviewers working independently selected the studies and data extraction for engagement strategies was guided by a codebook. We used narrative synthesis to report on findings.ResultsIn total, 150 collaborative care programs were analyzed. The synthesis showed that personalized care planning or shared decision making were practiced in fewer than half of programs. Practices related to personalized care planning, and to a lesser extent shared decision making, involved multiple members of the collaborative care team, with care managers playing a pivotal role in supporting patient and family engagement. Opportunities for quality improvement were identified, including fostering greater patient involvement in collaborative goal setting and integrating training and decision aids to promote shared decision making.ConclusionThis review suggests that personalized care planning and shared decision making could be more fully integrated within collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders. Their absence in some programs is a missed opportunity to spread person-centered mental health practices in primary care.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Nearly 50% of depressed primary care patients referred to mental health services do not initiate mental health treatment. The most promising interventions for increasing depression treatment initiation in primary care settings remain unclear. METHODS:We performed a systematic search of publicly available databases from inception through August 2017 to identify interventions designed to increase depression treatment initiation. Two authors independently selected, extracted data, and rated risk of bias from included studies. Eligible studies used a randomized or pre-post design and assessed depression treatment initiation (i.e., ≥ 1 mental health visit or antidepressant fill) among adults, the majority of whom met criteria for depression. Interventions were classified as simple or complex and sub-classified into intervention strategies that were graded for strength of evidence. RESULTS:Of 9516 articles identified, we included 14 unique studies representing 16 (4 simple and 12 complex) interventions and 8 treatment initiation strategies. We found low to moderate strength of evidence for collaborative/integrated care (3 studies), treatment preference matching (2 studies), and case management (2 studies) strategies. However, there was insufficient evidence to determine the benefit of cultural tailoring (2 studies), motivation (alone, with reminders or with cultural tailoring (5 studies)), education (1 study), and shared decision-making strategies (1 study). Overall, we found moderate strength of evidence for complex interventions (8 of 12 complex interventions demonstrated statistically significant effects on treatment initiation). DISCUSSION:Collaborative/integrated care, preference treatment matching, and case management strategies had the best evidence for improving depression treatment initiation, but none of the strategies had high strength of evidence. While primary care settings can consider using some of these strategies when referring depressed patients to treatment, our review highlights the need for further rigorous research in this area.

Project description:Diabetes is a chronic disease with a high prevalence in the United States. If not treated adequately, it can have serious complications. Furthermore, when depression affects concomitantly, adherence to treatment can be decreased. Therefore, a cascade of complications may develop, affecting the quality of life and increasing the risk of death. Depression is underdiagnosed in patients with diabetes, and even if diagnosed, the treatment for both diabetes and depression is not well established in primary care. This study aims to evaluate if treatment for depression with collaborative care can improve glycemic levels and depression treatment response in diabetic patients with depression. As well, we will investigate if treatment with antidepressants will aid in improving glycemic levels. For this systematic review, we followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and used PubMed, PubMed Central, and MEDLINE as database. Keywords: "diabetes improvement with depression treatment'. For collaborative care intervention, we selected three systematic reviews and meta-analysis. These three studies gave us a total of 1637 patients evaluated for the glycemic outcome and 1793 patients for depression outcomes. For the intervention with antidepressants, we included two articles. One systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluated the effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) on glycemic levels and the second article involved was a systematic review that assessed the effect of antidepressants on glycemia. A total of 4119 diabetic patients taking antidepressants were evaluated for glucose levels of the outcome. For the collaborative care outcome: two of the three studies showed non-significant improvement of glycemic levels with intervention. However, one study that had a bigger sample size exhibited significant improvement of glycemia with collaborative care. It is necessary to elaborate on new studies to confirm this finding. For the glycemic outcome with antidepressants: SSRIs improve glycemic levels. This class of antidepressants is the most studied, and it would be interesting to perform trials comparing different classes of antidepressants with a bigger sample size and run for a more extended period. According to our review, collaborative care improves glycemia and depression treatment response. At the same time, it improves the adherence to treatment of both oral hypoglycemic drugs and antidepressants. SSRIs demonstrated to be more effective in glycemic control. The most studied and effective SSRIs are fluoxetine, escitalopram, and citalopram.

Project description:Background and aimThe collaborative care (CC) is emerging as an effective method in treating patients with multimorbidity, but evidence whether this model is effective for people with comorbid depression and diabetes is unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether CC could improve depression outcomes and HbA1c in patients with depressive symptoms and diabetes, and assess its effects on Quality of Life (QoL).MethodThe author searched Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, PsycINFO and CINAHL to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs published up to October 21, 2020. Studies were required to assess CC in patients with depressive symptoms and diabetes. The primary outcomes were depression treatment response rate and HbA1c and secondary outcome was Quality of Life (QoL). Available individual patient data was collected from all eligible studies. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers and critically appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, and the fixed effects and random effects model were used to pool Relative Risks (RRs) and Standard Mean Differences (SMDs).ResultsOur research identified 7906 articles, and finally 12 RCTs were included. Study sample sizes ranged from 58 to 417. The total follow-up period ranged from 12 weeks to 24 months. At follow-up, depression treatment response rate had a significant increase (RR = 1·31, 95% CI 1·23 to 1·39, I2 = 0%) in CC patients compared to controls. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c between CC group and the control group (SMD = 0·15, 95% CI -0·35 to 0·65, I2 = 97·6%). Overall QoL at follow-up was greater (SMD = 0·12, 95% CI 0·03 to 0·21, I2 = 54·2%) in CC patients compared to controls but the difference was minor.ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis supported the effectiveness of CC in reducing depression and improving QoL in people with comorbid depression and diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both have an increased risk of adverse outcomes and high health care costs. We conducted a study to determine whether coordinated care management of multiple conditions improves disease control in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial in 14 primary care clinics in an integrated health care system in Washington State, involving 214 participants with poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both and coexisting depression. Patients were randomly assigned to the usual-care group or to the intervention group, in which a medically supervised nurse, working with each patient's primary care physician, provided guideline-based, collaborative care management, with the goal of controlling risk factors associated with multiple diseases. The primary outcome was based on simultaneous modeling of glycated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and systolic blood-pressure levels and Symptom Checklist-20 (SCL-20) depression outcomes at 12 months; this modeling allowed estimation of a single overall treatment effect.ResultsAs compared with controls, patients in the intervention group had greater overall 12-month improvement across glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, 0.58%), LDL cholesterol levels (difference, 6.9 mg per deciliter [0.2 mmol per liter]), systolic blood pressure (difference, 5.1 mm Hg), and SCL-20 depression scores (difference, 0.40 points) (P<0.001). Patients in the intervention group also were more likely to have one or more adjustments of insulin (P=0.006), antihypertensive medications (P<0.001), and antidepressant medications (P<0.001), and they had better quality of life (P<0.001) and greater satisfaction with care for diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both (P<0.001) and with care for depression (P<0.001).ConclusionsAs compared with usual care, an intervention involving nurses who provided guideline-based, patient-centered management of depression and chronic disease significantly improved control of medical disease and depression. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468676.).

Project description:BACKGROUND: Depression and coronary heart disease (CHD) are frequently comorbid and portend higher morbidity, mortality and poorer quality of life. Prior systematic reviews of depression treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the population with CHD have not assessed the efficacy of collaborative care. This systematic review aims to bring together the contemporary research on the effectiveness of collaborative care interventions for depression in comorbid CHD populations. METHODS/DESIGN: Electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) will be searched using a sensitive search strategy exploding the topics CHD, depression and RCT. Full text inspection and bibliography searching will be conducted, and authors of included studies will be contacted to identify unpublished studies. Eligibility criteria are: population, depression comorbid with CHD; intervention, RCT of collaborative care defined as a coordinated model of care involving multidisciplinary health care providers, including: (a) primary physician and at least one other health professional (e.g. nurse, psychiatrist, psychologist), (b) a structured patient management plan that delivers either pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention, (c) scheduled patient follow-up and (d) enhanced inter-professional communication between the multiprofessional team; comparison, either usual care, enhanced usual care, wait-list control group or no further treatment; and outcome, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), standardized measure of depression, anxiety, quality of life, cost-effectiveness. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion. Meta-analytic methods will be used to synthesize the data collected relating to the outcomes. DISCUSSION: This review will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in populations primarily with CHD. The results will facilitate integration of evidence-based practice for this precarious population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013653.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify, appraise and synthesise evidence of interventions designed to promote family member involvement in adult critical care units; and to develop a working typology of interventions for use by health professionals and family members.DesignMixed-method systematic review.Data sourcesBibliographic databases were searched without date restriction up to June 2019: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Joanna Briggs and Cochrane Libraries. Back issues of leading critical care and patient experience journals were manually searched, as were the reference lists of included studies. All evaluation studies of relevant intervention activities were included; all research designs and outcome measures were eligible. Due to heterogeneity in interventions, designs and outcome measures, the synthesis followed a narrative approach. Service users met with the research team termly.ResultsOut of 4962 possible citations, a total of 20 studies were included. The overall evidence base was assessed as moderate to weak. Six categories of interventions were identified: environmental unit changes (n=2), web-based support (n=4), discussion-based support (n=6), multicomponent support (n=4), participation in rounds (n=3) and participation in physical care (n=1). Clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies hindered meta-analysis, hence a narrative synthesis was pursued. Six main outcomes were identified, grouped under two categories: (i) involvement outcomes: communication (mean difference ranged from 6.39 to 8.83), decision-making (mean difference ranged from -0.8 to 5.85), satisfaction (mean difference ranged from 0.15 to 2.48); and (ii) health outcomes: family trauma (mean difference ranged from -7.12 to 0.9), family well-being (mean difference ranged from -0.7 to -4), patient outcomes (relative risk ranged from 1.27 to 4.91). The findings from the qualitative studies were thematically analysed to identify features of the interventions that participants perceived to influence effectiveness. Synthesised into five overarching categories (practicality, development, interaction, reflexivity and bridging), these can serve as principles to inform the future design and development of more refined family member involvement interventions.ConclusionsFuture interventions should be developed with much closer family member input and designed by considering the key features we identified. We call for future interventions to be multilayered and allow for a greater or lesser level, and different kinds, of involvement for family members. Choice of intervention should be informed by a baseline diagnostic of family members' needs, readiness and preparedness for involvement.Prospero registrationCRD42018086325.